I'm sure there are elements of Lennon in this song, which I've just listened to again (incredibly, it popped up on iTunes shuffle just now from among 3,000 songs!) but I don't think it's entirely about him. I think Macca has long-since reconciled himself to the failed friendship and the woulda-coulda questions and, indeed, reached out to the ghosts with Real Love a decade ago...Great post!
Viscount LaCarte
· 2 years ago
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one Tom. I think this song is exactly about John.
He started to put his name first on the writing credits well after "The Beatles Anthology" series, and he appears quite defensive and cagey in interviews to this day when it comes to John, specifically referencing "In My Life" and "Yesterday." I don't think he will ever be able to completely reconcile their relationship.
Dan Schneider
· 2 years ago
Paul was the better lyricist, but a lousy poet.
But visionary? Uh, Einstein, Picasso, Lennon....something's amiss, Skipper.
Tom Watson
· 2 years ago
I think "visionary" fits both Lennon and McCartney.
steverino
· 2 years ago
One of my earliest tv memories - right up there along with the JFK funeral - was seeing the Beatles' first appearance on Sullivan. Years later, a friend said that any kid who saw that was changed forever.
I've spent most of my life since then thinking about the Beatles, and I've come to the conclusion that Lennon and McCartney's post Beatle-work ha had exactly the INVERSE ratio of good to bad songs that their Beatles work did...i.e., Beatles = 99 good songs per clinker...solo = 99 clinkers per good song. Nothing to be ashamed of, however - their Beatle-era canon remains unmatched by any group or single performer in terms of musicality, lyrics, innovation, and breadth. At the end of the day, I'm not sure it really matters WHO wrote what piece of each of their songs...the many bios attest to two minds essentially acting as one, especially in the early days.
P.S. - for fun, see last year's "The People vs. John Lennon" - a real delight and a reminder that lying, underhanded governments are not a new phenomenon.
Viscount LaCarte
· 2 years ago
Paul was the better lyricist, but a lousy poet.
Please tell me you are into irony.
Dan Schneider
· 2 years ago
Viscount, a lyricist relies on the music for emotion, whereas a poet's words have to do all the work. This is why song lyrics are larded with cliches. Even a Jim Morrison, prob the best lyricist of the rock era, was a lousy poet.
Dan Schneider
· 2 years ago
Tom,
A visionary, by definition, is a soloist. To require a second party means that there is no singular vision. That the Lennon-McCartney duo wrote together dispels the claim.
Also, visionaries have a transformative effect in their work. There is the Einsteinian universe, The Dalian POV in painting, etc. There is no Lennonian whatever.
Steverino is correct, that their post-Beatles stuff proves that neither man, alone, was anything but an average songwriter. Another knock against viisionary. And frankly, Wingsm despite mediocrity, was far better than any Lennon projects. That atrocious last album was execrable. Ringo did better in a caveman suit.
As for the hagiography about the Beatles. If you lop off the last thirty years of crap, the Stones match the Beatles for classics, and were more diverse. The Who was more diverse, and in terms of musicality and lyrics, Led Zeppelin was king of Classic Rock. The Beatles were pop.
Not a one of the Beatles could match a Jimmy Page or Pete Townshend's musicality.
Neddie Jingo
· 2 years ago
I'm not going to weigh in on the question of who qualifies as a "visionary" and who doesn't; comparing scientific discoveries to musical works is a minefield of subjectivity that's best left alone. But a couple of assertions can't go unanswered:
Led Zeppelin was king of Classic Rock. The Beatles were pop.
What does this even mean? These are completely ahistorical and artificial categories, thought up by radio and journalist gooberheads to classify something that's almost by definition unclassifiable. If you want to use "diversity" (another highly subjective word) as a criterion for excellence, both of these bands explored an enormous range of genres; can you really defend the notion that "Helter Skelter" is "pop" and "D'yer Mak'er" isn't?
Not a one of the Beatles could match a Jimmy Page or Pete Townshend’s musicality.
I'm at a bit of a disadvantage, here, because I don't know the extent of your musical literacy. Your assertion implies a rather reductionist definition of the word "musicality." I don't think Pete Townshend himself would allow your assertion to stand. (Pete? Wanna weigh in?)
The Beatles' initial appeal to the musical intelligentsia (as opposed to their appeal to teenaged girls) was based on the effortless harmonic sophistication that informed their arrangements. (I'm talking "With the Beatles," here, not "Revolver," by which time their genius was quite clear to everyone.)
The Beatles were above all else a quartet. Particularly in their pre-marijuana period, their song-arrangement skills were put to use to make four instruments sound like one single unit. That is to say, they sublimated their individual musical egos to the task of producing something greater than the sum of its parts. I'd point in particular to George Harrison's lead guitar work, which in many cases wasn't what we now think of as "lead guitar" at all (i.e., the production of bombastic single-note weedle-weedle extravanganzas at a given point in a song -- many thanks are due in part to your Mr. Page for this innovation), but instead served the arrangement as an important but not dominant element. In many cases ("I Want to Hold Your Hand," "She Loves You," "When I Get Home" come to mind) it's quite impossible to tell the lead and rhythm guitars apart, so complex is their interplay.
I would call this subservience of the ego to the greater whole, musicality.
(Fascinatingly, at the instant I was typing this last paragraph, I received Dan's gibbering broadside "Diversion on Censorship, Stupidity, Dishonesty, et al.....", and having now wiped the flecks of saliva from my glasses and face, and noting Dan's assurance that he won't be darkening our doors any longer, I can drop the veneer of politeness that I had carefully constructed around this Comment and say what I was actually thinking:
(Dan, you're clearly not a musician, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about, and perhaps most tellingly of all, you clearly have a very bad habit of defining words to your own purpose. In the case of this post, you misunderstand the word "musicality"; in the case of that bucket of bile you just dumped into my Inbox, you clearly need to carefully look up the word "censorship."
Jesus Christ: Jim Morrison!?!?!?! You blither, Dan. Please check this tendency. It's highly unbecoming.)
Slappy
· 2 years ago
I think Lennon's lyrics were as good as if not better as a solo artist.
And visionary the Beatles were. Pop music was never the same.
Besides, Einstein's music sucked.
sean
· 2 years ago
Just a couple of thoughts on Dan's response: Lester Bangs once called Jim Morrison, Bozo Dionysus, cause he knew that, despite his gibberish Morrison's shaman antics were good street theater if nothing else. Morrison's "American poet" mystique is just tired, crusty 60s myth. And just how was he the best lyricist of the era? Other than "Break On Through" (and maybe a few bootlegs)he/they never lived up to their Blake-derived moniker.Cut for cut the only passable album is their last. Hell, Arthur Lee had more to say. As for Lennon, it's hard to imagine anyone, contrarian or otherwise, preferring the cloying Wings to, hard, bitter,rueful songs like "Gimme Some Truth" and "Working Class Hero," and "Isolation." The remarks about "diversity" and "musicality" are just vague, unsubstantiated pronouncements. I love the early Who (Sings My Generation, Who Sell Out) but Townshend's turned the band (and his solo career) into one long concept/opera/high art project after another. If that's "diversity" you can have it.
Viscount LaCarte
· 2 years ago
Ned is the shit, ain't he?
As Tom said, Paul and John were both "visionaries" in their field. This is beyond debate.
Writing lyrics like "His brain is squirming like a toad" and "Out here we are stoned; immaculate!" automatically disqualifies you from any list that has the word "best" in it.
I still do like "I am the lizard king / I can do anything."
The reason I accused Dan of being into irony was not because he said McCartney was a "lousy" poet - it was because he called him the better lyricist.
Paul did write some fine lyrics though - he seemed to not care all that much and just stumbled upon them by chance.
I don't know about the nuances of the word musicality, and I like both Pete Townshend and Jimmy Page, but I think the music that came out of the Beatles is arguably as good as anything that the human race has ever produced.
And goddamn it, nobody calls ME Skipper.
Tom Watson
· 2 years ago
I particularly enjoyed the use of the word "blither." Didn't Lennon use that in an early version of I Am the Walrus?
Viscount LaCarte
· 2 years ago
Didn’t Lennon use that in an early version of I Am the Walrus?
Almost. It was actually in "Across The Universe."
Words are flowing out like endless rain into a paper cup, they blither while they pass they slip away across the universe
egoboss
· 2 years ago
those lyrics seem analogous to one heather mills-mccartney, to moi ...
All Comments
He started to put his name first on the writing credits well after "The Beatles Anthology" series, and he appears quite defensive and cagey in interviews to this day when it comes to John, specifically referencing "In My Life" and "Yesterday." I don't think he will ever be able to completely reconcile their relationship.
But visionary? Uh, Einstein, Picasso, Lennon....something's amiss, Skipper.
I've spent most of my life since then thinking about the Beatles, and I've come to the conclusion that Lennon and McCartney's post Beatle-work ha had exactly the INVERSE ratio of good to bad songs that their Beatles work did...i.e., Beatles = 99 good songs per clinker...solo = 99 clinkers per good song. Nothing to be ashamed of, however - their Beatle-era canon remains unmatched by any group or single performer in terms of musicality, lyrics, innovation, and breadth. At the end of the day, I'm not sure it really matters WHO wrote what piece of each of their songs...the many bios attest to two minds essentially acting as one, especially in the early days.
P.S. - for fun, see last year's "The People vs. John Lennon" - a real delight and a reminder that lying, underhanded governments are not a new phenomenon.
Please tell me you are into irony.
A visionary, by definition, is a soloist. To require a second party means that there is no singular vision. That the Lennon-McCartney duo wrote together dispels the claim.
Also, visionaries have a transformative effect in their work. There is the Einsteinian universe, The Dalian POV in painting, etc. There is no Lennonian whatever.
Steverino is correct, that their post-Beatles stuff proves that neither man, alone, was anything but an average songwriter. Another knock against viisionary. And frankly, Wingsm despite mediocrity, was far better than any Lennon projects. That atrocious last album was execrable. Ringo did better in a caveman suit.
As for the hagiography about the Beatles. If you lop off the last thirty years of crap, the Stones match the Beatles for classics, and were more diverse. The Who was more diverse, and in terms of musicality and lyrics, Led Zeppelin was king of Classic Rock. The Beatles were pop.
Not a one of the Beatles could match a Jimmy Page or Pete Townshend's musicality.
Led Zeppelin was king of Classic Rock. The Beatles were pop.
What does this even mean? These are completely ahistorical and artificial categories, thought up by radio and journalist gooberheads to classify something that's almost by definition unclassifiable. If you want to use "diversity" (another highly subjective word) as a criterion for excellence, both of these bands explored an enormous range of genres; can you really defend the notion that "Helter Skelter" is "pop" and "D'yer Mak'er" isn't?
Further on the question of "diversity": The Beatles bent genres in construction of their unique style well before they became famous. Listen to the Decca audition tapes from 1962; you'll hear "Sheik of Araby," "Bésame Mucho," "Like Dreamers Do," and "Hello, Little Girl" in quick succession. With a little sympathy and openmindedness, you can quite easily trace how elements of these diverse genres found their way into the Beatles' later output. The point being, it's arguable that the Fabs' experimentation with a wide range of styles was their single most important contribution to rock -- that the simplistic harmonic patterns of early rock could be expanded to include conventions borrowed from jazz (the sixth chord that suffuses "She Loves You," the walking bass in "All My Loving"), musical theater ("Michelle," "Girl") bluegrass ("I've Just Seen a Face"), classical ("Yesterday," "Eleanor Rigby"), West Coast country ("I Don't Want to Spoil the Party"), and the list goes on and on and on. In this area, the Beatles were absolutely unarguably innovators, and everyone else followers.
Not a one of the Beatles could match a Jimmy Page or Pete Townshend’s musicality.
I'm at a bit of a disadvantage, here, because I don't know the extent of your musical literacy. Your assertion implies a rather reductionist definition of the word "musicality." I don't think Pete Townshend himself would allow your assertion to stand. (Pete? Wanna weigh in?)
The Beatles' initial appeal to the musical intelligentsia (as opposed to their appeal to teenaged girls) was based on the effortless harmonic sophistication that informed their arrangements. (I'm talking "With the Beatles," here, not "Revolver," by which time their genius was quite clear to everyone.)
The Beatles were above all else a quartet. Particularly in their pre-marijuana period, their song-arrangement skills were put to use to make four instruments sound like one single unit. That is to say, they sublimated their individual musical egos to the task of producing something greater than the sum of its parts. I'd point in particular to George Harrison's lead guitar work, which in many cases wasn't what we now think of as "lead guitar" at all (i.e., the production of bombastic single-note weedle-weedle extravanganzas at a given point in a song -- many thanks are due in part to your Mr. Page for this innovation), but instead served the arrangement as an important but not dominant element. In many cases ("I Want to Hold Your Hand," "She Loves You," "When I Get Home" come to mind) it's quite impossible to tell the lead and rhythm guitars apart, so complex is their interplay.
I would call this subservience of the ego to the greater whole, musicality.
(Fascinatingly, at the instant I was typing this last paragraph, I received Dan's gibbering broadside "Diversion on Censorship, Stupidity, Dishonesty, et al.....", and having now wiped the flecks of saliva from my glasses and face, and noting Dan's assurance that he won't be darkening our doors any longer, I can drop the veneer of politeness that I had carefully constructed around this Comment and say what I was actually thinking:
(Dan, you're clearly not a musician, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about, and perhaps most tellingly of all, you clearly have a very bad habit of defining words to your own purpose. In the case of this post, you misunderstand the word "musicality"; in the case of that bucket of bile you just dumped into my Inbox, you clearly need to carefully look up the word "censorship."
Jesus Christ: Jim Morrison!?!?!?! You blither, Dan. Please check this tendency. It's highly unbecoming.)
And visionary the Beatles were. Pop music was never the same.
Besides, Einstein's music sucked.
As for Lennon, it's hard to imagine anyone, contrarian or otherwise, preferring the cloying Wings to, hard, bitter,rueful songs like "Gimme Some Truth" and "Working Class Hero," and "Isolation." The remarks about "diversity" and "musicality" are just vague, unsubstantiated pronouncements. I love the early Who (Sings My Generation, Who Sell Out) but Townshend's turned the band (and his solo career) into one long concept/opera/high art project after another. If that's "diversity" you can have it.
As Tom said, Paul and John were both "visionaries" in their field. This is beyond debate.
Writing lyrics like "His brain is squirming like a toad" and "Out here we are stoned; immaculate!" automatically disqualifies you from any list that has the word "best" in it.
I still do like "I am the lizard king / I can do anything."
The reason I accused Dan of being into irony was not because he said McCartney was a "lousy" poet - it was because he called him the better lyricist.
Paul did write some fine lyrics though - he seemed to not care all that much and just stumbled upon them by chance.
I don't know about the nuances of the word musicality, and I like both Pete Townshend and Jimmy Page, but I think the music that came out of the Beatles is arguably as good as anything that the human race has ever produced.
And goddamn it, nobody calls ME Skipper.
Didn't Lennon use that in an early version of I Am the Walrus?
Almost. It was actually in "Across The Universe."
Words are flowing out like endless rain into a paper cup, they blither while they pass they slip away across the universe